There are some people in the world who believe that anything is justified to stay alive and dominate in the flesh on this plane of existence as long as possible. The Nazis thought so. There are plenty of Jews in Israel and the U.S. who think so. The main neocons think so. There are many non-Jews in the world who think so too. Real Christians don't think so. In fact, they know it isn't justified but rather death of the soul, as Jesus defines death.
The War on Terror uses terror. To bring Hell, they make Hell to fight Hell. Hell is torture. Hell is stress positions. Hell is extremes of heat and cold. It is blaring music. It is sleep depravation. Hell is waterboarding. Hell is living in excrement. It is constant darkness. It is constant bright lights. Hell is bad food. It is sexual depravity. Hell is isolation. Hell is being screamed at incessantly. It is being beaten repeatedly. Hell is being bombarded. It is rained on by white phosphorus. Hell is nuclear war. It is biological and chemical warfare. Hell is being given drug overdoses. I won't go on, because I don't want to give anyone new/old ideas. Hell is broken people breaking people on the orders of broken people.
Hell is spying where there is no good reason to be even looking. Hell is locking people up just to set an example that anyone can be locked up. Well, what do people have to lose then?
Hell is immorality. It is the means by which it brings itself. Evil lowers itself out of the sight of those who rise. There's plenty more where that came from too.
Sickness is increasing even while healing is increasing. The separation is already underway — sheep from goats, in case you weren't following where I was going with this. If you don't understand the allusion, I'm naming names. The sheep and goats are people with names written in the Book of Life or the Book of Death.
It comes from an allegory by Jesus. The literalists will imagine they'll be turning into sheep; however, they'll be with the proverbial goats if they don't stop with the conservative-Republicanism and start thinking also in figurative terms.
How can they escape damnation if they don't stop being conservative Republicans? Switching over to the liberal Democrats won't work either. They too will be with the goats.
Are they goats? What's in a name? Francis Bacon was a homosexual, freemason, spy, embezzler, secular-humanist atheist. What's in a name? What's in Jesus? Everything. What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Yes well, it's a "rose." It isn't by any other name. That's the point. Yah would save no matter what we call him. Call him Satan, and you'll find out otherwise. Yes, they are goats. This is a connotation of the word "goats." They are humans with the name goat and conservative and Republican and liberal and Democrat and Pharisee and Zionist. There's another connotation of the name Zionist. One is evil. The other is good.
Semantical understanding is required in order to speak the language of the revelation. Control the word, and you control the thoughts, emotions, deeds, and creation on all levels.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)